Closed StevenCannon-USDA closed 9 months ago
I don't use the KEY4 for anything. :)
I think leaving the KEY4 the same in this case is arguably the right thing to do (to indicate that it's the same dataset even though other aspects of the full yuck have changed shape). I'm guessing from what you say that the new full yuck is going to be glyma.Wm82.gnm6 and not glyma.Wm82_ISU01.gnm6? I foresee many regexp substitutes in our future...
ACTUALLY that's how we can indicate that a collection has had a name change! The KEY4 is the same!
(License plate analogy: moving the plate to your new car, indicating that it's the same owner inside!)
I do not use the KEY4 at all. So do what is most expedient.
This renamed collection is finally available at Phytozome: https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/info/Gmax_Wm82_a6_v1 I decided to go ahead with new keys, since the new gene IDs are fundamentally different from the previous ones (there is no simple transformation between the two). The genome key is S97D and annotation key is PKSW. I'll close this issue and start a new data-preparation issue for the "new" assembly+annotations.
It seems that the assembly and annotation formerly known as "Wm82_ISU01.gnm2.ann1" (Data Store) or "ISU-01 v2.1" (Phytozome) will be renamed to gnm6 / v2. The leads on this project have decided that the original name was a bad choice.
Question for those of you who may have opinions about how to handle this in the Data Store: Should we mint new KEY4s for these collections? The main intended purpose of the KEY4 is to provide a way to track the data to the legumeinfo/soybase/peanutbase Data Store and the associated metadata.
My inclination is to leave the two KEY4s unchanged, but I'd like to hear if any of you think of unintended consequences. @adf-ncgr @sammyjava @maxglycine @jd-campbell